Two careless comments from the Unionist side have allowed Scotland's First
Minister to regain some of his momentum after his sterling plans were widely
derided

The iron rule that politicians should always beware of the unintended consequences of their words hit home with a vengeance on different sides of the Unionist camp yesterday.

In the House of Lords, the normally astute Ian Lang astonished everyone when he said that splitting the Union would "dishonour the sacrifices made in common case of those who died for the United Kingdom".

Now, knowing the man as I do – or at least did – I doubt that the now Lord Lang of Monkton meant to suggest that backing independence besmirched the memory of those who gave their lives in two world wars.

Unfortunately, it could be read that way and needless to say Alex Salmond chose to read it in precisely that way, demanding that Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Tory leader, disassociate herself from Lord Lang's "ridiculous" remarks.

Related Articles

At Holyrood there was a potentially more damaging slip of the tongue, as it was officially designated by her entourage, from Johann Lamont, the Labour leader.

With that exaggerated bravado that he is known for and which must surely count against him with the voters in the long run, Alex Salmond was demanding that we continue to acknowledge his infallibility over his economic policy.

Every hand may be turned against him, every economist of any repute is essentially saying he's crackers and it didn't take Bletchley Park code breakers to see that the Governor of the Bank of England was saying he couldn't have full independence and a currency union with the rest of the UK.

But still the Salmond galleon sails serenely on. That it's heading for the rocks on this issue may be everyone else's view but to the poor saps in the Nat trenches Eck's word is law. And so, defying the world, logic and even the English language the First Minister insisted that Mark Carney had given him the green light to grab the pound, no matter what the Brits had to say on the subject.

Although everyone who's anyone insists that being part of a sterling zone after independence would mean that all of Scotland's taxation and spending decisions would be decided by a foreign country, to whit the United Kingdom (or what's left of it), that's not how it's seen by the SNP leader.

He listed all manner of things that the government of an independent Scotland could control – excise duty, air passenger duty, value added tax, capital gains tax, oil and gas taxation, national insurance, income tax, corporation tax, competition law, consumer protection, industry regulation, employment legislation and the minimum wage, energy markets and regulation, and environmental regulation.

It was here that the Lamont tongue slipped in an unfortunate direction, when she said that these were "wee things".

With a barely concealed relish, Mr Salmond asked: "Is that the Labour Party's proposition to the people of Scotland – that those are wee things or peripheral issues? They are the substance of the independence debate."

A measure of the Nats' efficiency came when within a eye's twinkling St Andrew's House rushed out a poster listing all the above changes they say they'd make and pouring scorn on Ms Lamont calling them "wee things".

Labour tried to hit back by complaining to Sir Peter Housden, the permanent secretary, that the Scottish Government should not have been involved in producing what was a purely party political poster. I don't fancy their chances in that direction and, in any case, the damage had been done.

Alex Salmond is losing the argument over sterling in massive fashion but there's no doubt he had the better of the exchanges with Ms Lamont yesterday.

However, his list of tax changes may actually provide within it the seeds of his own undoing. Asked by Ms Davidson to explain why he expected the English, Welsh and Northern Irish to share their currency, Mr Salmond repeated his belief that the English are desperate – positively gagging – to share the pound.

But why would anyone want to share a prized asset, such as sterling, with a new country that was hell bent on being a competitor? Mr Salmond doesn't want to control corporation tax, or air passenger duty, or capital gains tax, or even VAT to make them higher than those in the UK.

He wants to undercut the Brits. He wants to steal their markets, their inward investment and their profitable companies, or else what's this independence nonsense all about?

Why on earth, in that case, would the English, Welsh and Northern Irish wish to share anything with such a deadly potential rival?